Cited by 648Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsPhilosophy and History of ScienceNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics

Omnès, Roland·1992·Reviews of Modern Physics

Abstract

Within the last decade, significant progress has been made towards a consistent and complete reformulation of the Copenhagen interpretation (an interpretation consisting in a formulation of the experimental aspects of physics in terms of the basic formalism; it is consistent if free from internal contradiction and complete if it provides precise predictions for all experiments). The main steps involved decoherence (the transition from linear superpositions of macroscopic states to a mixing), Griffiths histories describing the evolution of quantum properties, a convenient logical structure for dealing with histories, and also some progress in semiclassical physics, which was made possible by new methods. The main outcome is a theory of phenomena, viz., the classically meaningful properties of a macroscopic system. It shows in particular how and when determinism is valid. This theory can be used to give a deductive form to measurement theory, which now covers some cases that were initially devised as counterexamples against the Copenhagen interpretation. These theories are described, together with their applications to some key experiments and some of their consequences concerning epistemology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/revmodphys.64.339

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The consistent histories formalism satisfies (Q) and (S) and thus violates (C) by Theorem 1.

    “The CH formalism contains the Born rule as a special case and hence fulfils Assumption (Q). Since it also satisfies (S), it follows from Theorem 1 that it violates (C).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Omnès, R.
Venue
Reviews of Modern Physics
Published
1992-04-01
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
339-382
ISSN
  • 0034-6861 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-0756
OpenAlex
W1973260862
Cited by
648
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 9
FWCI
27.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reviews of Modern Physics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
interpretation of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen interpretation, consistent histories, decoherence, measurement problem, determinism, macroscopic phenomena, epistemology of quantum mechanics, quantum foundations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review